> The hard part of computer programming isn't expressing what we want the machine to do in code. The hard part is turning human thinking -- with all its wooliness and ambiguity and contradictions -- into computational thinking that is logically precise and unambiguous, and that can then be expressed formally in the syntax of a programming language.
> That was the hard part when programmers were punching holes in cards. It was the hard part when they were typing COBOL code. It was the hard part when they were bringing Visual Basic GUIs to life (presumably to track the killer's IP address). And it's the hard part when they're prompting language models to predict plausible-looking Python.
> The hard part has always been – and likely will continue to be for many years to come – knowing exactly what to ask for.
I don't agree with this:
> To folks who say this technology isn’t going anywhere, I would remind them of just how expensive these models are to build and what massive losses they’re incurring. Yes, you could carry on using your local instance of some small model distilled from a hyper-scale model trained today. But as the years roll by, you may find not being able to move on from the programming language and library versions it was trained on a tad constraining.
Some of the best Chinese models (which are genuinely competitive with the frontier models from OpenAI / Anthropic / Gemini) claim to have been trained for single-digit millions of dollars. I'm not at all worried that the bubble will burst and new models will stop being trained and the existing ones will lose their utility - I think what we have now is a permanent baseline for what will be available in the future.